ironphoenix (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ironphoenix) wrote2009-06-08 08:29 pm
ironphoenix) wrote2009-06-08 08:29 pm
Current issue
I've been reluctant to post on this subject for a while, because my position isn't a popular one, I fear. Recent events, however, have made it harder to stay silent, so here goes. If you don't stop reading here, I ask that you go all the way to the end.
I believe abortion is wrong. I believe it is a killing of a helpless human being, with all that entails. In cases where if the child doesn't die then the mother will, I can support it, but not otherwise.
That said, I believe a lot of other things, too.
I believe that safe, effective contraception and thorough, realistic sexual education should be universally available. I believe that sexuality, and current reality being what it is, women's sexuality in particular, should not be stigmatized. I believe that child care should be available and affordable. I believe that staying at home to look after children should not be a "CLM." I believe that victims of rape should be supported and treated with dignity and respect, not further victimized. I believe that in law and in practice, women should have free access to safe abortions. I believe that women who choose to have abortions should not be stigmatized either, and should have access to support and counselling services. I believe that we as a society need these things. I believe that the consequences of not having these things are contributing or would contribute to a lot of suffering and oppression. I hope that we, as societies, can overcome the systemic and structural factors which lead women to consider having their children aborted. I believe that the best ways to do this are by providing the support I described, not by imposing restrictions on vulnerable women at the time of their need.
That beling my fundamental position, let me now write a few things about the recent murder of Dr. Tiller, a doctor who specialized in late-term abortions, apparently motivated by his practice.
I believe that killing this person was wrong and unjustified. I believe it was an intrinsically wrong act of itself, and more. I understand the position that could be taken, that killing someone who would themselves kill many others is the lesser of two evils, and I reject it. I believe that it's a false saving, and one which merely contributes to the violence and oppression that encourage women to seek out abortions. I believe that "preemptive" acts or punitive vigilanteism undermine the social relationships of trust and mutuality that build lasting solutions to systemic problems. Let me say this again clearly and unequivocally: I repudiate this killing.
In closing, I ask that you not quote me out of context. I've written short sentences here, but they're part of a whole. It would be easy to misrepresent me by taking bits of this and leaving the rest behind; please don't.
I believe abortion is wrong. I believe it is a killing of a helpless human being, with all that entails. In cases where if the child doesn't die then the mother will, I can support it, but not otherwise.
That said, I believe a lot of other things, too.
I believe that safe, effective contraception and thorough, realistic sexual education should be universally available. I believe that sexuality, and current reality being what it is, women's sexuality in particular, should not be stigmatized. I believe that child care should be available and affordable. I believe that staying at home to look after children should not be a "CLM." I believe that victims of rape should be supported and treated with dignity and respect, not further victimized. I believe that in law and in practice, women should have free access to safe abortions. I believe that women who choose to have abortions should not be stigmatized either, and should have access to support and counselling services. I believe that we as a society need these things. I believe that the consequences of not having these things are contributing or would contribute to a lot of suffering and oppression. I hope that we, as societies, can overcome the systemic and structural factors which lead women to consider having their children aborted. I believe that the best ways to do this are by providing the support I described, not by imposing restrictions on vulnerable women at the time of their need.
That beling my fundamental position, let me now write a few things about the recent murder of Dr. Tiller, a doctor who specialized in late-term abortions, apparently motivated by his practice.
I believe that killing this person was wrong and unjustified. I believe it was an intrinsically wrong act of itself, and more. I understand the position that could be taken, that killing someone who would themselves kill many others is the lesser of two evils, and I reject it. I believe that it's a false saving, and one which merely contributes to the violence and oppression that encourage women to seek out abortions. I believe that "preemptive" acts or punitive vigilanteism undermine the social relationships of trust and mutuality that build lasting solutions to systemic problems. Let me say this again clearly and unequivocally: I repudiate this killing.
In closing, I ask that you not quote me out of context. I've written short sentences here, but they're part of a whole. It would be easy to misrepresent me by taking bits of this and leaving the rest behind; please don't.
no subject
This statement is not, in any way, consistent with the rest of your position.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
If abortion is killing a helpless human being, then the rest of your opinion, where you hold that it should be legal, that it should not be punished, that it should carry no stigma? Is monstrous.
no subject
no subject
no subject
#1: Why does the allegedly-fully-human blastocyst *not* have a right to control it's own body?
#2: Why do *you* have the right to refuse to give *me* bone marrow or a kidney?
(and assuming that "we have no way of knowing" is the same as "we can reasonably assume" is a nightmare when you start discussing human reproduction. For the record)
no subject
When I said "no way of knowing" I meant that the question is almost teleological in nature. You can't produce an answer through scientific reasoning, because it's not a scientific question.
no subject
There's a good side discussion to be had on what constitutes a scientific question... but perhaps that belongs elsewhere.
no subject
The answer in this case seems to be that there is a conflict of rights that can be in opposition,
If you accept that a microscopic clump of undifferentiated cells is a human being with all the rights of a human being, then yes, you have rights in conflict.
no subject
No, but the 1 year old has no say if a surgery is to be performed. It is entirely up to the parents and the state, and to some degree the medical staff.
If you accept that a microscopic clump of undifferentiated cells is a human being with all the rights of a human being, then yes, you have rights in conflict.
Which was my point.
no subject
And now we're right back at the start of the discussion, where Mike said that abortion was the killing of a helpless human being, and I pointed out that if that's true, the rest of his position is inconsistent to the point of incoherency.
no subject
He's seeming to take the position that making it illegal—or at least stigmatizing—for women to control their bodies by having abortions is more abhorrent for a number of reasons than the killing of a late term foetus.
no subject
Abhorrence, to me, has little to do with feeling good about something, and a lot to do with (probable) consequences.
no subject
#2 is tricky. I believe that there is a difference between what's morally right and what's legally enforceable. Giving bone marrow or a kidney is morally right, but it can be argued (and usually is, implicitly) that it should not be legally enforceable, because the negative consequences of diluting the right of sovereignty of the body outweigh the positive consequences of saving lives by such involuntary "donations". I can imagine a society that might decide otherwise, and in fact it could make a very good premise for a science fiction story.
Your last statement is a bit loose. I believe that human identity begins at fertilization, at which time the genotype is set. I think it's not an ironclad argument, but to say that it's an unreasonable assumption would be hard to justify.
no subject
You need to define "human identity" before we can continue, here.
(While we're at it: What's your opinion on IVF and HeLa? Is HeLa fully human with all human rights? It's got a MUCH stronger case for being a separate, individual organism, given that, unlike a blastocyst, it *can* survive nonparasitically. And they've got the exact same amount of functional brain matter!)
no subject
no subject
His method is hardly less legitimate than yours.
Define "legitimate" for me, will you?
(And, if you look at the thread, I haven't expressed a definition or claimed a superiority of method. I've simply been pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions.)
no subject
The cancer cells originally taken from Henrietta Lacks. You're suggesting for some reason that cancer cells are able to be kept alive under specific laboratory conditions are more viable to be called a person than an unimplanted embryo, in an attempt to discredit
Define "legitimate" for me, will you?
In this context? "Non-arbitrary" pretty much sums it up.
(And, if you look at the thread, I haven't expressed a definition or claimed a superiority of method. I've simply been pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions.)
You've presented a series of leading questions meant to lead someone to a specific view. You might just be a dick and want to have people believe things that you don't believe in just for fun, but I'm discounting that right now.
no subject
in an attempt to discredit ironphoenix's religious views by suggesting they are ridiculous.
I have no need to suggest that his religious views are ridiculous. In this case, at least, it doesn't matter *where* he gets the premises - my argument is that his premises don't match his conclusions.
In this context? "Non-arbitrary" pretty much sums it up.
Fair enough. I tend to add "internally and externally consistent" to my personal definition of legitimacy - which is why I brought up the question in the first place.
You've presented a series of leading questions meant to lead someone to a specific view.
I wouldn't say I have - not exactly. While "how is X different from Y?" carries the obvious implication that I *don't* see a difference, it doesn't lead to an inevitable conclusion. After all, you might have an answer to the question that I just don't see.
I'm pointing out things I think are inconsistent within the framework of the discussion and asking how they can be reconciled. And yes, my expectation is that if you can't reconcile an inconsistency, you re-examine the premises that led you to it, because *that's how rational thinking works*. But the fact that I ask the question doesn't mean there's no answer to it. It's just something that I think really should be examined.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
That's not what I'm getting, mostly. You're saying there are inconsistencies, but I don't hear you being specific about what they are and why you consider them inconsistent.
The trouble with this kind of argument is that you're taking no firm position of your own, contenting yourself instead with challenging mine. "Formlessness" is a good defense, but it makes little forward progress towards any goal.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
This is verging on uncivil; please avoid ad hominem argumentation, even by implication (in this case, that
no subject
HeLa requires a finer distinction, and the question is still too new to me for me to have constructed a position I'll stand solidly behind. My gut feel is "not human," but that's not well-substantiated for me right now.